Emily Schneider
Special Contributor, Blog Entry #2

“I’ve never seen so many men fighting before,” said a young attorney, who sat across the desk from me and the rest of our group of five.  She was just returning from a walk-through, of another part of the prison, which we were all visiting that day and describing her experience.

“While we were standing there, speaking with a supervisor, one of the men started to punch another.  One had a razor, or a piece of wire, and cut the other; there was so much blood.  Soon after, all the guards rushed in and grabbed the man who started the fight.  They beat him repeatedly, on the face, the arms, and stomach. When he finally fell down they picked him up and carried him off.”

My supervisor asked where they took the man who instigated the fight.

“We asked one of the prisoners what would happen to him and he told us the guards would put him in solitary confinement for a few days and then release him back into the large cell with the group,” she replied

After hearing this story, we all sat there in disbelief.  My supervisor explained to me that they were familiar with the reality that guards habitually beat inmates but had never seen it firsthand. This time the HRLN attorneys witnessed such a beating and might be able to use the experience to file a petition for a public interest litigation (PIL).

“After things calmed down, we asked the guard giving us the tour of the jail what normal procedure was for incidents like this.  His response was that we, “Just saw it.”  He also mentioned that the guards at this particular jail are specially trained in calming prisoners down.  Sometimes they are even sent to other facilities, including the women’s jail, to enforce peace.

I asked him why there would be a need to send male guards to the women’s jail as the female guards stationed at them are supposed to enforce the peace.  He looked right at me and said, “Yes, but there are some things a man is needed for.”  I think he knew right away that he had said too much because he didn’t answer the rest of our questions.

It was my second week working at HRLN and I was in a meeting for the disability rights initiative.  The woman speaking was a young attorney who was assigned to the disability department.  She and two other attorneys were investigating torture and cruel treatment of prisoners with disabilities in jail.  When I first joined the disability rights initiative I was a bit disappointed; I was hoping to be assigned to the anti-trafficking or reproductive rights departments.  Disability law was something I could do in the U.S. and I was looking for new experiences at HRLN.

However, India’s treatment of persons with disabilities is so atrocious that the issues tackled by the disability rights initiative at HRLN are not even remotely similar to the problems facing people with disabilities in the United States.  In India, there is nothing in the government system that is designed to provide any form of aid to these people.

My research of Indian law, found that almost no provisions are given to support, or provide, for persons with disabilities in any sector.  There is no help for them in obtaining: education, employment, transportation, and juvenile justice legislation.  Instead, persons with disabilities are treated as second class citizens and are denied equal access to employment, education and housing.  Worse, some are placed in substandard institutions for the rest of their lives.

HRLN takes on high-impact public interest litigation cases to try and change the standard for persons living with disabilities and bring the domestic laws of India up to general international standards, and to achieve compliance with the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The lack of provisions for persons with disabilities in daily aspects of life is disheartening itself, but when persons with disabilities are denied care during incarceration, a whole new set of problems arises.  In a recent case, adopted by HRLN, a physically handicapped prisoner was put in a large cell with other inmates where he was expected to share a single toilet and shower facility.  He could not walk the length of the cell to the toilet, nor could he stand up to use the facilities if he was lucky enough to get to them.  Instead, he was forced to defecate in his bed and went without showering for a month.

It was not surprising that because of this he developed bed sores that got badly infected.  To add to his predicament, he was able to eat only when the guards delivered his meal within arms length.  If they didn’t slide it far enough into the cell then he didn’t eat that day.

The prisoner recently died and his family approached HRLN, asking them to take the case. HRLN is planning to argue that this treatment denied the prisoner basic human rights and violated India’s obligations to ensure these basic rights under international law.  Sadly, like so many others, this case is now in a purgatory-like “pending” stage due to the Indian courts’ system being flooded by more cases than they can even remotely hope to handle.

 

Emily Schneider is a third-year law student at Syracuse University College of Law.  She will be contributing to Impunity Watch by blogging about her experiences in India, where she is spending her summer working as an intern.  

Case Western Reserve University School of Law and the Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG)

ICC Office of the Prosecutor Weekly Briefing June 2012 Issue 124

 

Courtney Schuster
Special Contributor, Blog Entry #2

Controlling the population growth in India has become a priority for government officials.  Yet, 25% of patients seeking contraception at public health facilities are turned away.  Instead, in order to slow the population increase, government hospitals are encouraged to hold sterilization camps.  Most sterilization camps are aimed at encouraging women to undergo tubal ligation, though some also perform vasectomies on men.  All of the patients are poor and most are considered, Below Poverty Line (BPL).  Those with enough money and time, choose to visit the private hospitals.

The Indian government set certain standards for sterilization camps; those standards are similar to what exists in developed countries.  For instance there must be: a trained staff of eighteen members; clean running water, a clean operating room with surgical lighting; clean gloves and equipment for each procedure;  patients must undergo a pre-operative test during which their vitals must be monitored; and post-operative care must be provided.  The camps typically operate from 9 am to 4 pm and a maximum of thirty sterilizations can be performed in that time.  Under no circumstances are the camps to be held at school buildings.

Unfortunately,  operational sterilization camps fall extremely short of the standards written on paper.  One of the cases I have been working on involves a sterilization camp that took place in the state of Bihar.  It violated almost every standard set by the Indian government.  There was a single doctor and an unqualified staff, totaling only five people.  Between 8 pm and 10 pm, operations were performed on a total of fifty-three women.  That means that the doctor spent, on average, 2.26 minutes per woman.  The camp operated out of a school that had no running water; additionally, no water was supplied to wash hands or sterilize the equipment.  There was no blood supplies available in case of an emergency.

The women were even required to buy some of the medical equipment and bring those purchases with them to the surgery.  They  were not given sterilized clothing to wear and were administered expired anesthetics.  They did not undergo a pre-operative check up, nor were they counseled about repercussions and side effects of the operation or alternatives to surgery.

School desks were used as operating tables without any sheets or sterilization.  The only light source was a  single, dim, generator-powered light bulb.  The doctor used the same gloves for multiple procedures.  None of the womens’ vital signs were monitored during the procedure.

After the women underwent the procedure, they were placed on a straw mat and left uncovered with no bandages to protect the incision.  They did not receive any post-operative care and they were not given a sterilization certificate for their medical records.

This case is just one of the many sterilization camp cases in which HRLN is involved.  Unhygienic and poorly run sterilization camps are commonplace in India because the government is pushing states to lower their population growth rate.  In turn, state governments are pushing public hospitals to sterilize a substantial portion of the population, at any cost.  For example, in the state of, Madhya Pradesh, the goal of 3,000,000 sterilizations in one year was set by the state government.  Basic cleanliness and patient health and safety is sacrificed to meet this outrageous goal and pacify both state and federal governments.

It seems odd that family planning via sterilization operation is emphasized since less invasive forms of contraception are available.  However, these less invasive methods are rarely promoted.  Condoms, hormonal birth control, and IUD’s are almost never handed out or prescribed by doctors around India.  Perhaps sterilization camps are so popular because the monetary incentives for operating a camp (totaling 1500 rupees per sterilization) are far more appealing to doctors and health centers than achieving a long-term solution to population growth by promoting the alternative contraceptive techniques available.

 

Courtney Schuster is a third-year student at Syracuse University College of Law.  She is currently working as an intern in India for the summer.  She will be contributing personal blog entries throughout her internship, documenting the challenges of solving human rights issues in international settings.  

By Reta Raymond
Associate Special Features Editor

I arrived in Kampala just two weeks after the opposition party ended its “Walk-to-Work” campaign.  They ended the campaign because they determined that the protest had come at a cost of too many lives.  Over roughly a month, people protested high fuel and commodity prices by walking to their respective offices instead of driving.  The military responded with liberal use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition.  They killed at least ten civilians, including two children.  The government has yet to investigate these deaths.

President Yoweri Museveni’s proposed constitutional amendment was another response to the protests.  He vowed that if he could not get parliamentary approval, he would seek a public referendum vote to pass the amendment.  The president wished to amend the Constitution so that persons charged with murder, rape, defilement, economic sabotage (a term that is not found in the Penal Code and remains undefined), and rioting could not apply for bail until they served a mandatory 180-day sentence on remand.

What made this proposed amendment so dangerous, I was told, was that charge sheets are often unsubstantiated or have weak evidence to support the charges.  Therefore, those opposition party members who were arrested during the Walk to Work Protests could be easily charged with “rioting” and then, pursuant to the amendment, be put in jail for at least six months.  This would be a quick and easy way for Museveni to slow the opposition party’s momentum.  Then, Museveni could continue doing whatever he pleased without his main opponents inciting protests.

This proposed amendment has drawn sharp criticism from local and international groups, as well as from members of parliament who believe that the proposal would violate fundamental human rights and freedoms.  One National Resistance Movement Member of Parliament (“MP”) stated, “In the last meeting, we told him that the move was unconstitutional and would one day fall back on us.”[1]  Another MP, Barnabas Tinkasimire, said, “The proposal is against people’s human rights and there are so many oppressive laws being forced on our people which we shall not accept.”[2]

Local attorneys suggest that, if enacted, the amendment would cause disharmony within the 1995 Constitution and would allow persons to be detained without trial.  Specifically, it would abrogate several constitutional provisions, including the presumption of innocence, an independent judiciary, the right to be free from detention without trial, the right to bail, the non-derogable right to a fair trial, and the protection of liberty.

I became involved when my boss enlisted me to write a paper that would discuss the constitutional amendment for the purpose of publication by a local group.  At first I was bewildered that the President could revoke the right to bail for such a potentially large group of people.  What became clear was that he was actually trying to rationalize detention without trial for the “Walk to Work” protestors who opposed his politics.  Even though Uganda boasts multiparty elections, such an amendment to the Constitution would effectively silence opposition party members through arbitrary arrest and detention without trial, which may signal that the country is actually a dictatorship.

The President continues to push the amendment to this day.  The proposed amendment may go for a public referendum vote, and, at least for show, the result is uncertain.  The President has won every election since 1986, but the elections are by no means entirely free and fair.  Therefore, the President’s amendment in a public referendum vote would probably be approved.

However, Museveni’s government recently found a new way to silence the opposition group, Activists for Change, who organized the “Walk to Work” campaign.  On April 4, 2012, a new law was imposed which declared Activists for Change to be an unlawful society, and made all of its public activities illegal.  This enactment came the day before the group’s planned celebration of the “International Day of Police Brutality” in Kampala.  Clearly this new law raises a host of constitutional issues, such as the right to assemble under Article 29 of the 1995 Ugandan Constitution.

In the last year, Uganda has seen much unrest in its streets, as the opposition party members were inspired by the change brought about in the Arab Spring.  Unfortunately, the protests have not materialized into a regime change like in Egypt and Tunisia, and Museveni’s response has been more akin to Syria’s.  However, the opposition party members bravely continue to protest for a better Uganda.